D&D 5E Monster errata: Drow with magic armor variant

[CapnZapp]

As far as I can understand, there is not yet any MM errata.

But there must be errors found. Are these collected anywhere?

Anyhoo; I just want to flag the Drow Magic Armor variant.

Regular Drow have AC 15 but Drow lucky enough to wear +1 chain shirts get AC 19. Can y'all see any reason why their AC wouldn't be AC 16?


regards,

 

[El Mahdi]

Regular Drow have AC 15 but Drow lucky enough to wear +1 chain shirts get AC 19. Can y'all see any reason why their AC wouldn't be AC 16?

Nope. I think you're right: it's probably a mistake. Whoever wrote the entry may have simply taken the AC for a Drow Elite Warrior and just added +1 for the magic chain shirt. However, chain shirt limits Dex to +2, so even if they did use a Drow Elite Warrior, the AC should still only be 16 (13, plus +2 for Dex, plus +1 for magic = 16). Even if it's assumed they have the Moderate Armor Mastery Feat, it would still only be 17.


Or it could just be that the rules for MM creatures don't always follow those of the PHB - though the rest of the Drow entries in the MM do...

 

[ryan92084]

The monster manual is full of unexplained math inconsistencies. The best compilation I know of can be found by googling d-d-5th-edition-monster-manual-dissected-wip-

 

[CapnZapp]

The monster manual is full of unexplained math inconsistencies. The best compilation I know of can be found by googling d-d-5th-edition-monster-manual-dissected-wip-

Wow.

That's... a lot.

(I'm secretly pleased my find wasn't already caught, though)

Thanks.

 

[pukunui]

The monster manual is full of unexplained math inconsistencies. The best compilation I know of can be found by googling d-d-5th-edition-monster-manual-dissected-wip-

I don't have time to go through that whole list, but this one stood out to me just now:

•Scout's Longbow specifies "ranged 150/300 ft.", but it should be "range 150/600 ft.".

It says "150/600" in my book, and mine's a 1st printing. I wonder if there are any other "errors" in that list that aren't actually in the book.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I don't have time to go through that whole list, but this one stood out to me just now:

It says "150/600" in my book, and mine's a 1st printing. I wonder if there are any other "errors" in that list that aren't actually in the book.

Some of the "errors" listed there are actually not errors at all given the way the monster building system works (build stats > playtest > adjust CR so that it feels right, rather than tweaking the math all across the monster to match what is listed as normal for a particular CR).

Example: the Assassin is listed as having erroneous saving throws, skills, passive perception, and attack modifiers. All +1 more than the values assigned for their "fix" - but that is because the Assassin was statted up as CR 9, but playtesting found it a little less potent than expected and its CR was adjusted to 8, which shouldn't include changing it's proficiency bonus because that would necessitate rechecking its probably CR, and would mean needing to keep testing to make sure those new values weren't still less than expected.

So really, the errors on that list aren't always actual errors, and indicate a significant way in which the compiler of the list has missed the point - putting the "rough idea" rules for building monsters as a higher priority than actual playtesting results.

 

[CapnZapp]

Since most "errors" on the list is one point off numbers (that is, some number being printed as +5 or 17 when the writer calculates them as +6 or 16) this tells me the MM is fairly robust and usable.

It is when a monster is printed as three times the damage it "should" do we have a problem.

I haven't checked the list in detail though, so I don't know how many "big" errors he or she claims to have found.